Mixed media: Annan cleared but doubts linger

Murky dealings

LONDON VIEW: The trouble for Kofi Annan is that to his increasingly confident critics he is not just failing to manage his son, but the UN itself. History is littered with the tales of sons and daughters embarrassing powerful parents. The difficulty that Annan faces now is over his own behaviour. For the UN's critics in the US Congress, the Kojo Annan affair has always been little more than a stick to beat the father with. They are highlighting the criticism of Annan's management failures. Even his greatest fans talk of a UN with a lack of "bread-and-butter accountability".

* The Daily Telegraph

CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER: I'm seeing a T-shirt:

My Dad's Secretary General of the UN and all I got was a lousy 300 grand.

* AST on www.rogerlsimon.com

SCOTS ANGLE: Under Kofi Annan, the UN allowed the oil-for-food programme to degenerate into a corrupt empire in which Saddam bribed numerous UN and other diplomats to turn their backs while he looted his country and starved its people. Under Annan, UN agencies failed to notice that Iran was making atomic bombs and "peacekeepers" conducted systematic sexual abuse of women and children across Africa. If Annan was blind to all this - involving billions of pounds and millions of people - why would we expect him to know what his son was up to? He will keep his job because his political myopia suits those UN members who see the organisation as a platform with which to beat the West. If the UN is ever to be reformed, it will need a more sharp-eyed secretary general.

* The Scotsman

RIGHT-WING WEBSITE: The more that comes out about the United Nations oil-for-food programme, the more obvious it is that UN officials engaged in rampant acts of wrongdoing. Kofi Annan, Kojo Annan, Benon Sevan and other UN officials have repeatedly been caught giving out misinformation, mistruths, and blatant misrepresentations.

They keep changing their stories to warp their explanation of what happened based on the latest incriminating revelations. The more times those involved in the UN oil-for-food scam change their stories, the more obvious is their guilt

* Move America Forward website

Support for UN

WEBSITE COMMENT: Thank God that the Secretary-General is cleared of any involvement in the UN oil-for-food programme. There are those in New York who would like the UN chief out simply because he did not support the war in Iraq. Please continue the UN reforms and efforts to support democratisation in Africa.

* Mathias Kulubya, quoted on bbc.co.uk

MINNEAPOLIS NEWSPAPER: There really is a lot more to the oil-for-food story - for example, how the US looked the other way when it knew Saddam was cheating, because it served Washington's purpose at the time. In the end, this isn't about oil-for-food, it's about the Bush administration's dislike of Kofi Annan. Senator Norman Coleman is simply the designated administration hit-man. But the weapon Coleman has chosen, the oil-for-food programme, is a wimpy little toy. And no matter how much Coleman tries to make it look larger, that's what it will remain.

* Minneapolis Star Tribune

AUSTRALIAN WEBSITE: European and other nations were expected to rally behind Secretary-General Kofi Annan, even though a new probe of the oil-for-food programme gave UN critics fresh ammunition.

Envoys anticipated a strong statement of support for Kofi Annan from the 25 European Union nations shortly. Security Council permanent member China said it was time for the issue to be closed.

* Finance News (link below)

BRITISH NEWSPAPER: The real issue is not the behaviour of the Secretary-General but the oil-for-food programme itself. Here, the conclusions to be drawn are far less clear cut - and much less convenient for those who will use the report to renew their calls for Kofi Annan's resignation.

The final Volcker report will not be released until the [northern] summer, but it is already clear the oil-for-food programme was a deeply flawed mechanism. And the US is arguably just as much to blame as any other nation for the flaws of the scheme.

The programme was administered by the United Nations Security Council - on which the United States is a permanent member. All the contracts had to be approved by the council's sanctions committee. This is relevant because the US is by far the most vigorous critic of the UN.

* Independent